I wonder if it would help at all to know that the Orthodox Church actually does not regard God as being present in the Roman church in the same way that He is present within herself (Pentecostal indwelling) and actually does not view it as "Apostolic" in the same sense either?

I wonder if it would help at all to know that the Orthodox Church actually does not regard God as being present in the Roman church in the same way that He is present within herself (Pentecostal indwelling) and actually does not view it as "Apostolic" in the same sense either?

Do the Orthodox believe that the Catholic Church has a real Eucharist? (because I do).

I wonder if it would help at all to know that the Orthodox Church actually does not regard God as being present in the Roman church in the same way that He is present within herself (Pentecostal indwelling) and actually does not view it as "Apostolic" in the same sense either?

Do the Orthodox believe that the Catholic Church has a real Eucharist? (because I do).

Well, for one, the Orthodox believe that they are the Catholic Church.

And no, most do not believe that the Roman church has a real Eucharist.

Well, for one, the Orthodox believe that they are the Catholic Church.

And no, most do not believe that the Roman church has a real Eucharist.

I think we should all at least respect each other, or the two churches will never be reunited. Please don't call us the "Roman" church because we wouldn't call you the "Greek" church or the "Russian" church, but the Orthodox church.

What would you say to a Catholic who believes they have experienced the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist? God bless

You probably shouldn't call them Orthodox, because from a Romanist perspective they are either heretics or schismatics and either way are not really within the Orthodox Church (the Orthodox Church of the Fathers is the Roman church from a Romanist perspective).

I refer to your church as the Roman church because I do not believe that it is the church that the Fathers called the Catholic Church

What would you say to a Catholic who believes they have experienced the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist?

Perhaps they have (God is everywhere and works where He wills). But I don't believe that they have received the Real Presence of His Body and Blood and I would tell them that if it seemed sharing my opinion was significant at the time.

You know better than to post stuff like this on the Prayer Forum. This is a board reserved for prayer, not for commentary, especially NOT for your anti-Catholic polemic. For desecrating the Prayer Forum in this way, you are receiving this warning to last for the next 3 weeks. If you think this action wrong, feel free to appeal it to either Veniamin or Fr. George.

Let's keep in mind that the Eastern Orthodox Christian Church* has never met in synod to address the developments and innovations of Roman Catholicism since the 13th century, except for synods of primates that were more specifically examining the teachings of St. Gregory Palamas and the Gregorian Calendar. Some Orthodox clergy and saints have addressed their opinions of modern Catholicism. But, because the Roman Catholic Church is not Orthodox, the Orthodox Church does not consider Roman Catholicism to possess the fullness of faith, neither does it consider its sacraments as valid for Orthodox Christians, especially the Holy Eucharist, but that doesn't mean that the Orthodox Churches don't respect the holiness and presence of God in this Apostolic, Trinitarian Faith. There are some Orthodox Holy Synods that respect the validity of their Sacrament of Holy Orders. I think the Orthodox Church in America (OCA) has accepted Roman Catholic clergy by vesting. Most of the Orthodox eparchies in North America demonstrate acceptance of their Sacrament of Holy Baptism by accepting converts through Holy Chrismation, without the administration of the Orthodox Sacrament of Holy Baptism. Say what you may about certain possible excesses in ecumenical relations, particularly by the Ecumenical Patriarchate (such as Patriarch Dimitrios,' of blessed memory, "concelebration" of the Liturgy of the Word, before the Altar of the Basilica of St. Peter, with Pope John Paul II, of blessed memory), with Roman Catholicism, but there is a lot of respect for that faith among Orthodox clergy (Deacons, Priests, and Hierarchs). One of the final topics not as yet addressed by a preconciliar commission of the Holy and Great Synod (Council) of the Orthodox Church, is ecumenical relations and specifically, relations with the Church of Rome.

*These comments ignore the positions taken about Roman Catholicism among separated, traditionalist, Old Calendarist Orthodox Churches.

You probably shouldn't call them Orthodox, because from a Romanist perspective they are either heretics or schismatics and either way are not really within the Orthodox Church (the Orthodox Church of the Fathers is the Roman church from a Romanist perspective).

Off topic but sort of interesting: Byzantine and early modern Greek language was called "Romaic". Why is this the case?

I can read Greek literature up to about the 10th century AD, and Katharevousa with a modern Greek dictionary. I cannot understand modern Demotic Greek, as it is quite different grammatically from Plato and the New Testament.

I think we should all at least respect each other, or the two churches will never be reunited. Please don't call us the "Roman" church because we wouldn't call you the "Greek" church or the "Russian" church, but the Orthodox church.

LittleFlower,

You are going to have a hard around here, if you are going to be offended by being called an RC, a Romanist, a schismatic, a heterodox, a Papist, an ultramontanist, etc.

If you find these terms difficult and imprecise and would like to return in kind and refer to the Orthodox Church in some manner which might to you be equally demeaning, you will probably be sanctioned in some manner.

It is an Orthodox Christian board. But I do think the RCs do get a rough time of it at times.

Let's keep in mind that the Eastern Orthodox Christian Church* has never met in synod to address the developments and innovations of Roman Catholicism since the 13th century, except for synods of primates that were more specifically examining the teachings of St. Gregory Palamas and the Gregorian Calendar. Some Orthodox clergy and saints have addressed their opinions of modern Catholicism. But, because the Roman Catholic Church is not Orthodox, the Orthodox Church does not consider Roman Catholicism to possess the fullness of faith, neither does it consider its sacraments as valid for Orthodox Christians, especially the Holy Eucharist, but that doesn't mean that the Orthodox Churches don't respect the holiness and presence of God in this Apostolic, Trinitarian Faith. There are some Orthodox Holy Synods that respect the validity of their Sacrament of Holy Orders. I think the Orthodox Church in America (OCA) has accepted Roman Catholic clergy by vesting. Most of the Orthodox eparchies in North America demonstrate acceptance of their Sacrament of Holy Baptism by accepting converts through Holy Chrismation, without the administration of the Orthodox Sacrament of Holy Baptism. Say what you may about certain possible excesses in ecumenical relations, particularly by the Ecumenical Patriarchate (such as Patriarch Dimitrios,' of blessed memory, "concelebration" of the Liturgy of the Word, before the Altar of the Basilica of St. Peter, with Pope John Paul II, of blessed memory), with Roman Catholicism, but there is a lot of respect for that faith among Orthodox clergy (Deacons, Priests, and Hierarchs). One of the final topics not as yet addressed by a preconciliar commission of the Holy and Great Synod (Council) of the Orthodox Church, is ecumenical relations and specifically, relations with the Church of Rome.

*These comments ignore the positions taken about Roman Catholicism among separated, traditionalist, Old Calendarist Orthodox Churches.

The OCA usually accepts Roman and Eastern-Rite Catholic priests by vesting. Most mainline Protestant baptized Christians are accepted by Chrismation, but the anointing is more extensive than it is for converts from Catholicism. So there is clearly a sense in which we feel closer to the Latin church. But a year or so ago, two metropolitans in Romania were called on the carpet and nearly deposed for participating in a Roman Catholic Mass, so that sense of closeness is also clearly limited.

I wonder if it would help at all to know that the Orthodox Church actually does not regard God as being present in the Roman church in the same way that He is present within herself (Pentecostal indwelling) and actually does not view it as "Apostolic" in the same sense either?

Do the Orthodox believe that the Catholic Church has a real Eucharist? (because I do).

The Orthodox Church does not believe nor teach that the Vatican can "confect the Eucharist" (to use the Vatican's terminology), as its supreme pontiff and his hierachies are not in the Catholic communion of the Orthodox diptychs. No Orthodox could receive their communion, so it is a non issue for us.

I do cross myself going by a church under the Vatican, and prostrate if I go in and adoration is going on, but that is only my personal opinion/theologoumen.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Well, for one, the Orthodox believe that they are the Catholic Church.

And no, most do not believe that the Roman church has a real Eucharist.

I think we should all at least respect each other, or the two churches will never be reunited. Please don't call us the "Roman" church because we wouldn't call you the "Greek" church or the "Russian" church, but the Orthodox church.

What would you say to a Catholic who believes they have experienced the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist? God bless

There is no compromising the Truth.

In your faith, you must accept that I am in schism and deny certain dogmas/councils and permit divorce, etc.In my faith, I must deny papal infallibility and supremacy, purgatory, the Filioque, etc.

I have never understood why we must unite because of some similar beliefs and origin. Either I must repent and join the Pope or you must repent and join the Orthodox Church. I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church as do you. If that is true, one of us is in isn't Catholic (not to be rude or anything, just the facts).

As-Salamu alaykum,zekarja

P.S. You may call my Church whatever you believe it to be. I won't take offense.

Over at the Byzantine Forum, Fr Ambrose posted the following postings from Fr Alexander Lebedeff (ROCOR). At the very least they witness to a diversity of both practice and understanding within Orthodoxy:

In reality, the Russian Orthodox Church fully recognized the validity of apostolic succession in both the Roman Catholic and Oriental Orthodox Churches (Copts, Armenians, Assyrians, etc.).

I can find, rather easily, at least fifty pre-revolutionary official sources of the Russian Orthodox Church that state, unequivocally, that the Roman Catholics have apostolic succession--these are textbooks of Canon Law, Manuals and Handbooks for Clergy, and other sources that reference official Decrees of the Holy Synod.

The Baptism of Roman Catholics and Monophysites was recognized as completely valid and salvific, as were the Mysteries of Confirmation, Marriage and Ordination.

Remember, the official position of the Russian Orthodox Church was that none of these Mysteries should be repeated if a roman Catholic were to wish to become Orthodox.

Orthodox priests were explicitly **forbidden** to "re-baptize" Roman Catholics. And Roman Catholic priests who became Orthodox were accepted simply by Confession of Faith and then vesting--they were not baptized, chrismated or reordained.

And-- the Russian Orthodox Church issued an official decree allowing Roman Catholic Uniates to be given Holy Communion by Orthodox priests in those areas where they could not be ministered to by a Uniate priest.

In the "Handbook for Priests" by Bulgakov, a discussion is found regarding whether Episcopalian (Anglican) priests could also be received in full ecclesiastical rank when becoming Orthodox, as were Roman Catholics. The question revolved as to whether the Anglicans had preserved valid apostolic succession **AS HAD THE CATHOLICS**.

So-- there is no question that the Church of Russia considered the Roman Catholics to have valid apostolic succession.

Actually, not just the position of the Russian Orthodox Church during the past 400 years, but the position of the whole Church up until Patriarch Cyril and the Tomos of 1755.

I would suggest careful reading of the following.

The best Greek theologian and scholar to write on this issue, Fr. George Metallinos, in his book "I confess One Baptism" (available on-line) writes:

"According to the prevailing view, after the schism the Orthodox Church recognized ''the validity of the Latin sacraments,''[228] and indeed that of baptism. Upon their conversion, the Church applied Canon VII of the Second Ecumenical Council or XCV of Penthekte to them, or occasionally received them by a mere recantation of their foreign doctrines.[229] Even after the Crusades and the Council of Ferrara/Florence (1438-1439), when the relations between Orthodox and Latins became strained, and the stance of the Orthodox East in dealing with the Latins became more austere, [230] the East considered the application of Canon VII of the Second Ecumenical Council to be an adequate measure of defense, that is she received them by chrismation and a written statement. This action was officially ratified by the Local Council of Constantinople in 1484, with the participation, moreover, of all the Patriarchs of the East.

This Council also wrote an appropriate service.[231] Thus, according to I. Karmiris (and also according to the arguments of the Latinizers and pro-westerners during the Turkish rule), the cases of ''rebaptism'' were exceptions, owing ''to individual initiative,'' and ''not to an authoritative decision of the Church.''[232]

"This custom, however, was overturned in 1755 under Cyril V, Patriarch of Constantinople, by the imposing of the (re)baptism of Latins and all Western converts in general,[233] again through the application of Canon VII of the Second Ecumenical Council and the other relevant Canons of the Church. This action, to this day the last ''official'' decision of the Orthodox Church,[234] was opposed by those who disagreed. It was considered to have subverted the decision of the Council of 1484. because of its circumstantial character,[235] not having gained universal acceptance and application, it was often not adhered to. In addition, the practice of the Russian Church from 1667 differed from that of the other Orthodox Patriarchates, and indeed that of Constantinople.[236] This, then, is what is commonly accepted to this day concerning the issue in question."

Here we see that the prevailing view was that the Orthodox Church, since 1054, "accepted the validity of the Latin sacraments" and that even after the Council of Florence, when relations between the East and the West had totally deteriorated, the Council of Constantinople of 1484, at which all four Eastern Patriarchs participated, decreed that Latins should be accepted by Chrismation and a written statement, and, more importantly, this Council created a special service for the Reception of Converts according to the mandated form (Chrismation after giving a statement renouncing false teachings and professing the Orthodox faith).

Fr. Metallinos underscores that the Oros of 1755 under Cyril V **overturned** this previously established custom.

It is critical to note that the Russian Church **NEVER** accepted the Oros of 1755 as being binding for it, and continues to this day to consider as prevailing the decision of the Council of Constantinoplein 1484, which directed that Latins NOT be baptized. This was confirmed at the Council of the Russian Church in 1667--the last time that a Council of the Russian Church addressed this issue.

In fact, it would have been impossible for a Council of the Russian Orthodox Church to have accepted the Oros of 1755, since there WERE NO Councils of the Russian Church held from 1690 until 1917!!!

The Russian Church Council in 1667, at which two Patriarchs of the East participated, had previously sent queries to ALL of the ancient Patriarchs, asking for their opinion on this question. The unanimous reply of all four Patriarchs confirmed the position of the 1484 Council of Constantinople--that Latins were not to be rebaptized.

Fr. George Metallinos writes: "The Council of Moscow in 1620-21 decided to baptize Western converts.[276] However, the ''great'' Council of Moscow in 1666-67, in which the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch also participated, approved the decision of the 1484 Council of Constantinople, and thus rejected the (re)baptism of Western converts."

We must remember tyhat Fr. George Metallinos' work is based on the positions of the Kollyvades Fathers, especially Neophytos and C. Oikonomos. Still, he admits:

"Nevertheless, the Council of Constantinople in 1484 creates the greatest difficulties for an acceptance of our theologian's position on Latin baptism. This Council decided ''only to anoint with chrismthe Latins who come over to Orthodoxy,.after they submit a written statement of faith.'' In other words, it ranks them in the class of the Arians and Macedonians of the Second Ecumenical Council (Canon VII).[262]"

In a footnore, Metallinos quotes Bishop Kallistos Ware:

"Ware writes in this connection: ''Neither of these Councils [i.e. Constantinople, 1484, and Moscow, 1667] was exposed to foreign pressure or acted from fear of Papist reprisals"

So it is totally incorrect to attribute the position of the Russian Church regarding accepting as valid the baptism of the Latins to Peter the Great or to Western influence.

Actually, regarding Peter I, Metallinos quotes from a reply in 1718 of Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremias III to Czar Peter the Great, in which the Patriarch directs the Czar to receive Latins ''by mere chrismation,''

Metallinos is forced to admit that even the theologian he uses as the basis for his thesis, C. Oikonomos, wrote the following:

"''I honor and respect the Russian Church as the undefiled bride of Christ and inseparable from her Bridegroom, and in addition as my own benefactress, by which the Lord has done and shall do many great and marvelous things, as she unerringly and verily follows the rule of piety. Hence, I do not doubt that it was in a spirit of discernment that she chose the older rule, in accordance with which she accepts the baptism of the other Churches [sic], merely chrismating those who join when they renounce their patrimonial beliefs with a written statement and confess those of the Orthodox faith.''[317]"

Here we have the clear statement of Metallinos chief theologian that the Church of Russia chooses to follow what he calls "the **older rule**, in accordance with which she accepts the baptism of other Churches."

Now, please tell me how is the position stated by Archbishop Hilarion of Volokolamsk any different from the position of the Russian Church has held since 1667, which is based on the decision of the Council of the Four Patriarchs of 1484?

> On the other hand, you will find Orthodox who accept the "validity" of the> Roman Catholic episcopate and the Sacraments which flow from it. Saint> Philaret Metropolitan of Moscow is of this opinion.

As I mentioned before, it is far more than the opinion of St. Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow.

Every Handbook for Clergy, every textbook on Canon Law, Comparative Theology, Liturgics, and Pastorral Theology published in Russia before the Revolution states that the Roman Catholics have valid Mysteries and true apostolic succession, and that in no way should Baptism andChrismation, or ordination of them be performed again.

One can like it or not, but that was the official position of the Russian Church, without question or exception.

I wonder if it would help at all to know that the Orthodox Church actually does not regard God as being present in the Roman church in the same way that He is present within herself (Pentecostal indwelling) and actually does not view it as "Apostolic" in the same sense either?

Do the Orthodox believe that the Catholic Church has a real Eucharist? (because I do).

The Orthodox Church does not believe nor teach that the Vatican can "confect the Eucharist"

Metropolitan Philaret Voznesensky wrote "It is self evident, however, that sincere Christians who are Roman Catholics, or Lutherans, or members, of other non-Orthodox confessions, cannot be termed renegades or heretics—i.e. those who knowingly pervert the truth… They have been born and raised and are living according to the creed which they have inherited, just as do the majority of you who are Orthodox; in their lives there has not been a moment of personal and conscious renunciation of Orthodoxy. The Lord, “Who will have all men to be saved” (I Tim. 2:4) and “Who enlightens every man born into the world” (Jn 1:43), undoubtedly is leading them also towards salvation in His own way."

We do not know, I think, that God cannot heal/save an atheist, albeit if in the end he or she is saved by God that would not be because of his or her atheism.

Quote

What would you say to a Catholic who believes they have experienced the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist?

How would this differ from the Mormon view of subjective accreditation via "burning in the bosom"? I know a young polytheist/Wiccan (i.e. ecclectic syncretist) who strongly feels he has experienced the truth that the goddess Sophia is a true goddess who interacts with him daily and brings songs to speak to him on the radio. I also know another man who will not go to any church because he experiences God in the forest, and considers it a better cathedral than any other. He may experience God in the forest -who am I to know that he does not, or that God is not even now reaching to the others in their weakness as well (Jn 3:19-21)- but his experience does not represent the fullness of the presence of God to an Orthodox.

What would you say to a Catholic who believes they have experienced the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist?

How would this differ from the Mormon view of subjective accreditation via "burning in the bosom"? I know a young polytheist/Wiccan (i.e. ecclectic syncretist) who strongly feels he has experienced the truth that the goddess Sophia is a true goddess who interacts with him daily and brings songs to speak to him on the radio.

The answer that would apply to Orthodox believers in any similar case, equally applies to those members of the Catholic Church of MY Baptism.

What would you say to a Catholic who believes they have experienced the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist?

How would this differ from the Mormon view of subjective accreditation via "burning in the bosom"? I know a young polytheist/Wiccan (i.e. ecclectic syncretist) who strongly feels he has experienced the truth that the goddess Sophia is a true goddess who interacts with him daily and brings songs to speak to him on the radio.

The answer that would apply to Orthodox believers in any similar case, equally applies to those members of the Catholic Church of MY Baptism.

That's how it differs.

If a faith is true, one would expect to have subjective experience go along with it. But subjective experience alone does not prove any faith to be true. Or do you think it does? Members of virtually any world religion appeal to personal experience.

"Every one of us is in the image of God, and every one of us in like a damaged icon. But if we were given an icon damaged by time, damaged by circumstances, or desecrated by human hatred, we would treat it with reverence, with tenderness, with broken-heartedness. We would not pay attention primarily to the fact that it was damaged, but to the tragedy of its being damaged. We would concentrate on what is left of its beauty, and not on what is lost of its beauty. And this is what we must learn to do with regard to each person as an individual, but also -and this is not always easy--with regard to groups of people, whether it be a parish or a denomination, or a nation.

We must learn to look, and to look until we have seen the underlying beauty of this group of people. Only then can we even begin to do something to call out all the beauty that is there. Listen to other people, and whenever you discern something, which sounds true, which is a revelation of harmony and beauty, emphasize it and help it to flower. Strengthen it and encourage it to live." -Metropolitan Anthony Bloom of blessed memory

What would you say to a Catholic who believes they have experienced the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist?

How would this differ from the Mormon view of subjective accreditation via "burning in the bosom"? I know a young polytheist/Wiccan (i.e. ecclectic syncretist) who strongly feels he has experienced the truth that the goddess Sophia is a true goddess who interacts with him daily and brings songs to speak to him on the radio.

The answer that would apply to Orthodox believers in any similar case, equally applies to those members of the Catholic Church of MY Baptism.

That's how it differs.

If a faith is true, one would expect to have subjective experience go along with it. But subjective experience alone does not prove any faith to be true. Or do you think it does? Members of virtually any world religion appeal to personal experience.

I was baptised into the one holy catholic and apostolic Church, therefore I have no need to worry about anything subjective in order to live the true faith.

"What would you say to a Catholic who believes they have experienced the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist?"

Dear Little Flower:

I would believe them. The circumstances under which God makes Himself known to my fellow human beings is unknown to me. Although differences exist between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic churches, the similarities far outweigh them.

I'm glad you came by. Please consider sticking around. And have a blessed Lent.

^I think that it is important for Roman Catholic inquirers to keep in mind that there are many who call themselves 'Orthodox' and that a wide diversity of opinion does exist on this subject. The self-proclaimed 'traditionalist' bodies (such as the Genuine Orthodox Church and others) will express a harsh view of the Roman church ( and for some of them, not to mention the rest of the Orthodox world.) However, even within the Churches of the ancient Patriarchates, i.e. Constantinople, Antioch, Damascus, Alexandria and Moscow, one will find a wide range of opinion on the subject.

It is not at all inconsistent for a fierce and learned defender of Orthodoxy such as Isa to articulate Orthodoxy's objections to the Roman positions on issues such as the universality and infallibility of the papacy, the Filioque and liturgical innovations while maintaining a respect for and acknowledgement of the presence of Christ within the Roman Church as his personal theologoumen. I suspect that Patriarch Bartholomew and Patriarch Kyril would agree on that basic argument while differing on some of the specifics and external actions.

Even the most learned advocates of and participants in the academic process of 'ecumenism' among the Catholic and Orthodox participants in the dialog process recognize the deep divisions between the Roman and Orthodox perspectives and teachings. A casual review of their published papers points this out clearly. http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic.html

There are those on both 'sides'of Christianity -east and west- who fear dialog and try to distort areas of faith upon which we are substantially in accord. My advice is to understand that there are many passionate and loud voices but not to despair as you try to sort things out on your journey. Have a blessed Holy Week and Pascha!

/\ /\ Ah, I see that Fr Kimel has presented some of the writings of Fr Alexander Lebedeff (Russian Orthodox Church Abroad) on Roman Catholic and Pre-Chalcedonian sacraments.

As Irish Hermit knows, I think Fr. Alexander Lebedeff is wrong on this point and draws incorrect conclusions from the quotations he has provided to support the notion that the Russian Orthodox Church has historically accepted Roman Catholic sacraments as salvific and grace-filled. All Fr. Alexander has demonstrated is that the Russian Orthodox Church historically received Roman Catholics without requiring baptism and therefore considered Roman Catholic baptisms to be “valid”. This “validity”, however, pertains to the sacramental *form* administered and has nothing to do with whether the baptism was salvific or grace-filled. As Met Anthony (Khrapovitsky) thoroughly explains regarding the manner in which converts are received into the Orthodox Church, sacramental forms which are administered outside of the Orthodox Church are forms alone and empty of sanctifying grace. When a person is received into the Orthodox Church who has a valid *form* of chrismation/confirmation and/or baptism, the Orthodox Church may not require that person to be baptized because the grace present in the Orthodox Church completes the previously administered empty form, and renders salvific and grace-filled what previously was form without content. For more discussion on this, you can see the exchange between me and Irish Hermit below. Following my exchange with Irish Hermit I emailed Fr. Alexander Lebedeff asking him to clarify his position for me, but he is not responding to my emails.

I do cross myself going by a church under the Vatican, and prostrate if I go in and adoration is going on, but that is only my personal opinion/theologoumen.

I must say I am surprised to hear this from you.

I must say that I'm not surprised to hear that you are surprised.

But I am suprised to hear that from you.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

I do cross myself going by a church under the Vatican, and prostrate if I go in and adoration is going on, but that is only my personal opinion/theologoumen.

I must say I am surprised to hear this from you.

I must say that I'm not surprised to hear that you are surprised.

But I am suprised to hear that from you.

But not surpirsed to hear that from me.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

^I think that it is important for Roman Catholic inquirers to keep in mind that there are many who call themselves 'Orthodox' and that a wide diversity of opinion does exist on this subject. The self-proclaimed 'traditionalist' bodies (such as the Genuine Orthodox Church and others) will express a harsh view of the Roman church ( and for some of them, not to mention the rest of the Orthodox world.) However, even within the Churches of the ancient Patriarchates, i.e. Constantinople, Antioch, Damascus, Alexandria and Moscow, one will find a wide range of opinion on the subject.

It is not at all inconsistent for a fierce and learned defender of Orthodoxy such as Isa to articulate Orthodoxy's objections to the Roman positions on issues such as the universality and infallibility of the papacy, the Filioque and liturgical innovations while maintaining a respect for and acknowledgement of the presence of Christ within the Roman Church as his personal theologoumen. I suspect that Patriarch Bartholomew and Patriarch Kyril would agree on that basic argument while differing on some of the specifics and external actions.

Even the most learned advocates of and participants in the academic process of 'ecumenism' among the Catholic and Orthodox participants in the dialog process recognize the deep divisions between the Roman and Orthodox perspectives and teachings. A casual review of their published papers points this out clearly. http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic.html

There are those on both 'sides'of Christianity -east and west- who fear dialog and try to distort areas of faith upon which we are substantially in accord. My advice is to understand that there are many passionate and loud voices but not to despair as you try to sort things out on your journey. Have a blessed Holy Week and Pascha!

A good illustration of the difference between how Catholics and Orthodox approach such questions is Apostolicae Curae. (Wikipedia isn't the greatest source, but just for anyone who doesn't know what document I'm referring to:

Quote

A controversy in the Catholic church over the question of whether Anglican holy orders are valid was settled by Pope Leo XIII in 1896, who wrote in Apostolicae Curae that Anglican orders lack validity because the rite by which priests were ordained was not correctly performed from 1547 to 1553 and from 1558 to the 19th century, thus causing a break of continuity in apostolic succession and a break with the sacramental intention of the Church. Leo XIII condemned the Anglican ordinals and deemed the Anglican orders "absolutely null and utterly void".[4] Some Changes in the Anglican Ordinal since King Edward VI, and a fuller appreciation of the pre-Reformation ordinals suggest, according to some private theologians, that the correctness of the dismissal of Anglican Orders may be questioned; however Apostolicae Curae remains Roman Catholic definitive teaching and was in fact reinforced by Cardinal Ratzinger now Pope Benedict XVI.

Here is my take on this, fwiw. Please bear in mind that I am no theologian, no priest, no nuttin'. Just a poor working schmuck with a bunch of years under his belt, a bunch of reading that's been done, and a little bit of experience. Heck, I don't even have a college degree!

Anyway....I am a Jew. As such, I converted to Christianity a number of years ago. I was baptized into the wonderful Holy Byzantine Catholic Church. At the same time I was also chrismated, and received Holy Communion. Sometime later my wife (baptized Byz.Cath, raised RC) and I were received into Orthodoxy (OCA) via chrismation. Now, I know this may cause some here to become apoplectic , but since our chrismation we have have mainly worshipped and communed in the O.C., but there have been times when (shock, horror, gasp!!!!) we have received communion in the Catholic Church, confessed to and been absolved by Catholic priests. (Wow---now he's goin' straight to hell in a hand basket! )

Why do I say all this? Because I believe in ONE God, in ONE Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church..., in ONE baptism..., etc. And I believe that that ONE Church is manifested (if that's the right word) in both Orthodoxy AND Catholicism. And I believe that that makes the apostolicity of both, the validity of the sacraments of both EQUAL. God is really present in the Eucharist of both. How could He NOT be? Can anyone *prove* beyond any reasonable doubt that He is not? I know, I know....someone out there's going to start throwing theology at me after recovering their eyebrows from the ceiling, but it all boils down to this, as I've asked elsewhere on this forum.....when we come before God at the Final Judgment, will He ask if we were Catholic (yes, and if so, which type?), Orthodox (yes, and if so, which jurisdiction?), Baptist, or Jew, or whatever?? Well....will He? Or will He ask if we have loved Him, if we have loved our neighbor and our enemy; if we have fed the hungry, clothed the naked, etc.? Will He ask if we choose Him or if we choose the other? I mean, really.....come on folks....I know it's fun and interesting and edifying to argue, discuss, and debate these matters, but are they that which is **really** essential to us as God's children, who, hopefully, love Him above all else?

"Every one of us is in the image of God, and every one of us in like a damaged icon. But if we were given an icon damaged by time, damaged by circumstances, or desecrated by human hatred, we would treat it with reverence, with tenderness, with broken-heartedness. We would not pay attention primarily to the fact that it was damaged, but to the tragedy of its being damaged. We would concentrate on what is left of its beauty, and not on what is lost of its beauty. And this is what we must learn to do with regard to each person as an individual, but also -and this is not always easy--with regard to groups of people, whether it be a parish or a denomination, or a nation.

We must learn to look, and to look until we have seen the underlying beauty of this group of people. Only then can we even begin to do something to call out all the beauty that is there. Listen to other people, and whenever you discern something, which sounds true, which is a revelation of harmony and beauty, emphasize it and help it to flower. Strengthen it and encourage it to live." -Metropolitan Anthony Bloom of blessed memory

Thank you so much for posting this Xariskai. What wonderful words of wisdom.They may help me make it through one more day filled with questions.....especially as I try to make my way through as an inquirer who reads this forum every day. I rarely post as you are all, quite frankly, as a group - very intimidating. The phrases above bring me back to why I came here in the first place..........to see if beauty really could save the world.

However, you seem to have missed the point I was trying, in this case perhaps unsuccessfully, to make. And that point was my last paragraph, so I'll copy it here again, without the sarcasm (a huge fault of mine that I am continually working on, by the way):

"Why do I say all this? Because I believe in ONE God, in ONE Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church..., in ONE baptism..., etc. And I believe that that ONE Church is manifested (if that's the right word) in both Orthodoxy AND Catholicism. And I believe that that makes the apostolicity of both, the validity of the sacraments of both EQUAL. God is really present in the Eucharist of both. How could He NOT be? Can anyone *prove* beyond any reasonable doubt that He is not? But it all boils down to this, as I've asked elsewhere on this forum.....when we come before God at the Final Judgment, will He ask if we were Catholic (yes, and if so, which type?), Orthodox (yes, and if so, which jurisdiction?), Baptist, or Jew, or whatever?? Well....will He? Or will He ask if we have loved Him, if we have loved our neighbor and our enemy; if we have fed the hungry, clothed the naked, etc.? Will He ask if we choose Him or if we choose the other? "

I hope that now you will be able, if you so desire, to respond to the substance of my post rather than to something extraneous.

And I wish you a Blessed and truly holy Holy Week, and a Glorious Pascha!!

I hope that now you will be able, if you so desire, to respond to the substance of my post rather than to something extraneous.

And I wish you a Blessed and truly holy Holy Week, and a Glorious Pascha!!

In Christ,JM

I suppose I too expected a bit more gravitas with this particular message but I don't think you are trolling. Your position, which I agree with BTW, is so out of the ordinary, however, that to shuck 'n jive it looks strange to me. Perhaps I take it too soberly...I do have that fault in general, I think.

Would you indulge my curiosity and tell us why you went from the Roman Church to Orthodoxy?

I think many can come to this opinion by the lack of reverence present in many Catholic parishes. I can only say that I have a keener encounter of the divine within Orthodoxy. I'm trying to only speak from experience and not by some kind of theological argument. Of course, both can be misleading but I have to go with my gut on this one. Were the fruits are found, there is the holy spirit.

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

I hope that now you will be able, if you so desire, to respond to the substance of my post rather than to something extraneous.

And I wish you a Blessed and truly holy Holy Week, and a Glorious Pascha!!

In Christ,JM

I suppose I too expected a bit more gravitas with this particular message but I don't think you are trolling. Your position, which I agree with BTW, is so out of the ordinary, however, that to shuck 'n jive it looks strange to me. Perhaps I take it too soberly...I do have that fault in general, I think.

Would you indulge my curiosity and tell us why you went from the Roman Church to Orthodoxy?

Also are you familiar with the writing of Father Lev Gillet?

Mary

I'm curious why he would convert to Orthodoxy and then go back to Catholicism to receive their sacraments without a second thought. It's like getting married and then sleeping around. I guess if he's into that sorta thing... :/

In Christ,Andrew

Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos

I think many can come to this opinion by the lack of reverence present in many Catholic parishes. I can only say that I have a keener encounter of the divine within Orthodoxy. I'm trying to only speak from experience and not by some kind of theological argument. Of course, both can be misleading but I have to go with my gut on this one. Were the fruits are found, there is the holy spirit.

Very different experiences: as I've noted. I live in central PA and am surrounded by Orthodox, Catholic and eastern Catholic parishes. There are reverential liturgies in any and all of the ones I have encountered personally, and sometimes exceptionally so. It would please me to think that all the world was so blessed but I am not that naive. By the same token I have Greek friends who will drive hours on Sunday to avoid liturgies that are too "Russian"...That runs both ways, in fact, and Greek liturgies are thought to be quite dry by some standards. So there are people here who go with their guts too...

I think many can come to this opinion by the lack of reverence present in many Catholic parishes. I can only say that I have a keener encounter of the divine within Orthodoxy. I'm trying to only speak from experience and not by some kind of theological argument. Of course, both can be misleading but I have to go with my gut on this one. Were the fruits are found, there is the holy spirit.

Very different experiences: as I've noted. I live in central PA and am surrounded by Orthodox, Catholic and eastern Catholic parishes. There are reverential liturgies in any and all of the ones I have encountered personally, and sometimes exceptionally so. It would please me to think that all the world was so blessed but I am not that naive. By the same token I have Greek friends who will drive hours on Sunday to avoid liturgies that are too "Russian"...That runs both ways, in fact, and Greek liturgies are thought to be quite dry by some standards. So there are people here who go with their guts too...

Grace and Peace,

You know, I've heard this for years by well meaning Catholics on the internet... I'm sure you are right... like I've said before... I see such a division within differing Catholic Parishes as to argue they all may be in communion materially but not so spiritually. I don't fault the entire Catholic Church for my personal state. I am simply not strong enough spiritual to survive in such a confusing and frustrating environment. Clearly, it is my own weaknesses that drive me from the Western Church into refuge within Holy Orthodoxy. My wounds over the years under the care of the western tradition has only managed to heal but a little and at times flare up in infection to the point that I am at the very edge of my spiritual flame going out entirely. Only after extended time attending Vespers and other Feast Days among the Eastern Traditions do I return to better health. How am I to explain this? I can only say that it is here that I am nourished and find healing. I don't want to abandon my tradition but it seems my tradition has abandoned me. The Priests don't fight sin but make excuses for it's presence among us. I'm not given what I need to fight as our Saints fought many many years ago. We are taught a different faith to theirs and they pretend that it is the same but it clearly is not. I can not speak for you. If you are feed, then God Bless You but it is not well in the Catholic Church and I am tired. I don't want my children to be raise with these lies, I want them to hear the truth of our faith. If the Catholic Church will not do that, then I am not in the Catholic Church. It may materially be a parish with Roman Catholic Church on it's sign, but it is no such thing. That is all I have to say on this right now.

Quote

I hope some day you learn to listen to your heart instead...

Cute. Very Cute.

« Last Edit: April 16, 2011, 03:02:28 PM by ignatius »

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

Relax. I am not judging you. But I will ping the notes where you appear to paint the entire Catholic Church with the brush of your own, admittedly limited, experiences.

"For the salvation of my soul..." is powerful reason to move. It is the only one, as far as I am concerned. You may look weak to others and they may say so. That is not the case where I am concerned. I believe what you tell me. Why would I doubt you?

I think many can come to this opinion by the lack of reverence present in many Catholic parishes. I can only say that I have a keener encounter of the divine within Orthodoxy. I'm trying to only speak from experience and not by some kind of theological argument. Of course, both can be misleading but I have to go with my gut on this one. Were the fruits are found, there is the holy spirit.

Very different experiences: as I've noted. I live in central PA and am surrounded by Orthodox, Catholic and eastern Catholic parishes. There are reverential liturgies in any and all of the ones I have encountered personally, and sometimes exceptionally so. It would please me to think that all the world was so blessed but I am not that naive. By the same token I have Greek friends who will drive hours on Sunday to avoid liturgies that are too "Russian"...That runs both ways, in fact, and Greek liturgies are thought to be quite dry by some standards. So there are people here who go with their guts too...

Grace and Peace,

You know, I've heard this for years by well meaning Catholics on the internet... I'm sure you are right... like I've said before... I see such a division within differing Catholic Parishes as to argue they all may be in communion materially but not so spiritually. I don't fault the entire Catholic Church for my personal state. I am simply not strong enough spiritual to survive in such a confusing and frustrating environment. Clearly, it is my own weaknesses that drive me from the Western Church into refuge within Holy Orthodoxy. My wounds over the years under the care of the western tradition has only managed to heal but a little and at times flare up in infection to the point that I am at the very edge of my spiritual flame going out entirely. Only after extended time attending Vespers and other Feast Days among the Eastern Traditions do I return to better health. How am I to explain this? I can only say that it is here that I am nourished and find healing. I don't want to abandon my tradition but it seems my tradition has abandoned me. The Priests don't fight sin but make excuses for it's presence among us. I'm not given what I need to fight as our Saints fought many many years ago. We are taught a different faith to theirs and they pretend that it is the same but it clearly is not. I can not speak for you. If you are feed, then God Bless You but it is not well in the Catholic Church and I am tired. I don't want my children to be raise with these lies, I want them to hear the truth of our faith. If the Catholic Church will not do that, then I am not in the Catholic Church. It may materially be a parish with Roman Catholic Church on it's sign, but it is no such thing. That is all I have to say on this right now.

Relax. I am not judging you. But I will ping the notes where you appear to paint the entire Catholic Church with the brush of your own, admittedly limited, experiences.

What does disturbs me is that the Roman Catholic Church attempts to suggest that the Clergy are in communion and of one mind. I honestly don't see that at all. The Parishes that I've attended over the years are very politically ideological and mirror popular secular society. I ask, where is the salt and light? Most have only a thin veneer of the old church traditions present anymore "what smells and bells"? This is what I mean when I speak of the Catholic Church being dead, lost or gone. With their outward orthopracy went their inward orthodoxy. I am sure there are a few hold outs... just none around me. I ask you, how long can they stand? Until their Priest is eventually retired? I don't see enough tradition present in the modern Catholic Liturgy to mold hearts and minds. I don't seen any ascesis present in the clergy to form them into holy examples.

I've asked this of Catholics before, why where the sacred Relics thrown out with the Alters... after Vatican II? Why the radical change is orthopracy? To me, this was similar to the Iconoclasm in the Eastern Church but it was brought about from within... What Church that Claims continuity with the Apostles so quickly throws out their Traditions and Liturgy for another? I've struggled very long to understand that and Priests just look at me dumbfounded. Do you have an answer?

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

I've asked this of Catholics before, why where the sacred Relics thrown out with the Alters... after Vatican II? Why the radical change is orthopracy? To me, this was similar to the Iconoclasm in the Eastern Church but it was brought about from within... What Church that Claims continuity with the Apostles so quickly throws out their Traditions and Liturgy for another? I've struggled very long to understand that and Priests just look at me dumbfounded. Do you have an answer?

If I were a Catholic, I would say: "Don't worry, we have the international New Liturgical Movement which will fix everything if enough people join it." But there remains this "if"...

Ignatius: there are problems EVERYWHERE, including the Orthodox Church. Just yesterday I read an article in a Romanian newspaper about a woman who was six months pregnant and aborted because the child had Down syndrom. She said that she does not feel guilty about anything in front of God because beforehand she went to speak to a priest (orthodox) who told her that she can either keep the baby or terminate the pregnancy. (!!!) So therefore, in her words, she had a priest's blessing. This enrages me...There are priests with girlfriends/mistresses, there are priests who steal, priests who smuggle cigarettes over the border and try to bribe the policemen, priests who allow their daughter to cohabit with only a civil marriage...Artificial contraception is okay. Ascesis....hahahhaha!

What I mean is that liturgical orthodoxy does not necessarily moral orthodoxy. I can bet that that priest who told that poor woman that she can have an abortion is liturgically correct. But how mistaken he really is.